(March 2, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Surgenator Wrote:Okay, that's fine. You are simply reasserting the idea that there is built-in indeterminacy embedded in QM events, which are chance-based, chance being the polar opposite of determinism. And that's what the OP is about: if photons are truly timeless, then from the photon's "perspective," the emitter and the receiver are brought into a simultaneity, which means that as soon as the photon leaves its emitter, its receiver must be "known." At best, you have a paradox: determinism in one framework, and indeterminism in the other.(March 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: What does the word "chance" mean to you in the context of a single photon?
Chance is a non-zero probability. It doesn't matter if I apply to many photons or a single one. If I say a chance of interaction and a non-zero probability of interaction are interchangeable.
But we've already talked about all that. I suppose I really do have to let you reassert your reassertion one more time, and then unless there are no new ideas, then it's really over. Last word in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .
